RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
May 29, 2015 at 10:28 pm
(This post was last modified: May 29, 2015 at 10:29 pm by TheRealJoeFish.)
No, no, no ostracization. From my end: lunch break, surprise invite to a minor league baseball game, just getting home.
You were right, of course, regarding minors and contracts; I was sort of ignoring that as a technicality, but it's probably worth noting like you did. Now, I don't think it affects the particular subset of contracts relating to marriage, because 1) there's no question regarding the ability of, say, a ten-year-old to enter into a marriage contract, meaning that there's something special about those sorts of contracts, and 2) there's more to marriage than a contract (if there wasn't, there wouldn't be a supreme court case about it).
Now, regarding the equal protection clause statement, I do understand what you're saying. However, I simply think your reading of the equal protection clause is too narrow. Example: Poll taxes. A facially equal requirement - everyone must pay a certain amount of money to register to vote - was deemed to violate the equal protection clause. I think a reasonable parallel can be drawn.
And as for Scalia, well... I sure don't like most of his beliefs, and interpretations, and opinions... but I would not be surprised to learn he was, by many measures, certainly the most intelligent Supreme Court Justice. I disagree with him 90% of the time, but he is one of the greatest writers of all time.
I'll talk about Alito later tonite or tomorrow
You were right, of course, regarding minors and contracts; I was sort of ignoring that as a technicality, but it's probably worth noting like you did. Now, I don't think it affects the particular subset of contracts relating to marriage, because 1) there's no question regarding the ability of, say, a ten-year-old to enter into a marriage contract, meaning that there's something special about those sorts of contracts, and 2) there's more to marriage than a contract (if there wasn't, there wouldn't be a supreme court case about it).
Now, regarding the equal protection clause statement, I do understand what you're saying. However, I simply think your reading of the equal protection clause is too narrow. Example: Poll taxes. A facially equal requirement - everyone must pay a certain amount of money to register to vote - was deemed to violate the equal protection clause. I think a reasonable parallel can be drawn.
And as for Scalia, well... I sure don't like most of his beliefs, and interpretations, and opinions... but I would not be surprised to learn he was, by many measures, certainly the most intelligent Supreme Court Justice. I disagree with him 90% of the time, but he is one of the greatest writers of all time.
I'll talk about Alito later tonite or tomorrow
How will we know, when the morning comes, we are still human? - 2D
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.
Don't worry, my friend. If this be the end, then so shall it be.